hair removal
hair removal facts: click for consumer recommendations
  
  Home  Electric tweezers GHR FDA petition 1999   
   
NAVIGATION




Hair Removal Home
Hair Removal Methods
Hair Removal Directory
Hair Removal Search

Hair Removal "Permanent" *
Hair Removal Electrolysis *
Hair Removal Home electro *
Hair Removal Laser *
Hair Removal Flashlamp/IPL *
Hair Removal Combinations *
space * seeHair Removal note

Hair Removal Hair inhibitors
Hair Removal Home laser
Hair Removal Rx oral meds
Hair Removal Vaniqa

Hair Removal Temporary
Hair Removal Shaving
Hair Removal Depilatories
Hair Removal Friction
Hair Removal Tweezing
Hair Removal Waxing
Hair Removal Sugaring
Hair Removal Threading
Hair Removal Rotary epilators

Hair Removal Doubtful
Hair Removal Electric tweezer
Hair Removal Transdermal
Hair Removal Transcutaneous
Hair Removal Photoepilators
Hair Removal Microwaves
Hair Removal Dietary products
Hair Removal Herbal inhibitors

Hair Removal Recommended
Hair Removal Epilators
Hair Removal Electric razors
Hair Removal Home electrolysis
Hair Removal Home laser/IPL
Hair Removal Hot wax kits
Hair Removal Tweezers
Hair Removal Aftercare
Hair Removal Books

Hair Removal Other topics
Hair Removal  How to choose
Hair Removal  Tips
Hair Removal  Clinical data
Hair Removal  Manufacturers
Hair Removal  Regulation
Hair Removal  Info sources
Hair Removal  Scams
Hair Removal  Ripped off?

Hair Removal  FAQ
Hair Removal  Glossary
Hair Removal  Site info
Hair Removal  Feedback

Petition to revise GHR's FDA clearance

On 26 October 1998, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reclassified electric tweezers like GHR, stating "there is no statistically significant scientific data available at this time to support promotional claims of permanent or long-term removal of hair."

FDA tweezer reclassification (full text)

This left several questions regarding the status of two electric tweezers, AHRS and GHR, which had claimed for many years to be substantially equivalent to needle-type epilators.

On 19 May 1999, I submitted a petition to FDA asking them to clarify their position and to rescind AHRS and GHR clearance as substantially equivalent to needle epilators.

On 5 January 2000, FDA responded:

The initial classification of the AHRS Epilator 629, as a needle-type epilator, was made in error. We corrected this mistake shortly after we determined the device to be substantially equivalent to a preamendment tweezer-type epilator. We accomplished the correction by issuing a revised order to the manufacturer that reflects the proper classification of the device. Concerning the GHR System, our records show that the device was not cleared for marketing as a needle-type epilator, but was also cleared as a tweezer-type epilator.

Therefore, your request is based on an erroneous assumption that these devices have been found substantially equivalent to needle-type epilators.

On 11 February, I asked FDA to clarify comments made by reviewer Paul Tilton in his review of GHR.

On 10 April 2000, FDA replied:

If there is any question as to which predicate device the product was found equivalent, an examination of the clearance letter dated August 5, 1991 that was sent to the company reveals that the class of the device as originally cleared was class III. This classification corresponds to the classification of the Tweezer-Type Epilator. Therefore, this device was cleared originally as a class III Tweezer-Type Epilator.

In other words, GHR was never considered by FDA to be substantially equivalent to needle epilators.

You can download my petitions at FDA's website (warning: extremely large .PDF files-- requires Adobe Acrobat):

Docket 99P-1615 (GHR petition)

Docket 99P-1614 (AHRS petition)

 

Was this helpful?  Support this site!
Still have questions? Ask them at my free HairTell  hair removal forum!

   
         

 

© 1996-2009 Andrea James. All rights reserved.
 

Legal Info / Terms of Use Revised 30 December, 2001 .